Foreign Minister S.V.
Lavrov opposed the idea of I.V.
Stalin as the embodiment of absolute evil.
Speaking in Volgograd to veterans of the Great Patriotic War, the minister said: “By the way, attacks on Stalin as the main villain, lumping together everything that he did in the pre-war period, during and after the war, is also part of that attack. on our past, on the results of the Second World War ”.
Veterans, especially in the former Stalingrad, where Comrade Stalin, in some way genius loci, probably took his words favorably.
Others were upset, to say the least.
The progressive public, of course, took these words as the final self-exposure of the minister.
He started out as a liberal diplomat, and ended up praising the arch-villain.
But it was not only the Progressors who were indignant.
The conviction "Who says" Stalin "- says" Satan "is inherent in both anti-communist (white) monarchists and believers who remember the fierce persecution of the Church.
Until 1941, Comrade Stalin was on the line of Nero and Diocletian, and such things are not forgotten.
Finally, there are simply people who remember the past, and Comrade Stalin's crimes were quite large.
You are a communist or anti-communist, believer or non-believer, but in that era there were many bad things.
It looks like S.V.
Lavrov himself did not expect that the topic he touched upon was still so painful and generates the strongest return.
Commenting on the violent reaction, the minister called the way his words about Stalin were interpreted as "vile": the only culprits of the Second World War, thus they want to put on the same level our country and those who set themselves the goal of conquering Europe, and we saved this Europe from conquest, from destruction - and saved many peoples. "
“Some figures in our opposition, opposition media then began to say that“ Lavrov justifies the crimes of Stalinism ”.
This is despicable, but such insinuations are doomed to failure, since the Russian people are richer and smarter, ”Lavrov said.
True, the richest people, when it comes to historical politics, often loses the ability to chilled out reasoning. And it looks like this is exactly the case.
For a long time already, during the debates about the role of Comrade Stalin in the war, people who were not at all his admirers noted that he, in fact, was the Supreme Commander-in-Chief and it was impossible to separate him from both defeats and victories. Yes, we can say that the people won the war, and this will be true, but how did the people decide where to march and on which sector of the front to fight the Germans? Without the commander-in-chief, no matter how we treat him, the organization and coordination of military efforts is impossible. Is that to adhere to the teachings of Count L.N. Tolstoy, who in "War and Peace" tried to prove (not everyone considers this attempt successful) that Napoleon and Kutuzov were on their own, and the movement of peoples, which led the Great Army 3 thousand miles from Paris, was on its own.
Perhaps Stalin was not the best commander-in-chief in this unprecedented war, which history did not yet know, but what it was.
And he won.
And we do not know others.
In addition, for S.V.
Lavrov, as the head of Russian diplomacy, the foreign policy results of the war are also important.
The USSR (and by inheritance - Russia), as a victorious power, received important advantages.
Permanent membership in the UN Security Council, for example.
And in general the status of a great power.
But a necessary condition for this was the status of the sovereign leader I.V.
Stalin, who then was not subject to wrangling
If Stalin is an arch-villain and only an arch-villain, equal to Hitler, and most likely even worse, then the entire body of international agreements since 1945 (if not since 1943) is initially insignificant.
How all agreements signed by A. Hitler were declared null and void.
Then the USSR was wrong, and the East European (and not only East European) Nazis and neo-Nazis are right everywhere.
Even Mister Yes - A.V. probably would not agree with this.
Kozyrev, the former head of Russian diplomacy in the early 1990s, and even more so - S. V. Lavrov.
Should we call progressive geese “mean”?
The fact that they are vile is perhaps not without that, but was it worth paying attention to it?
The point of view of the author may not coincide with the position of the editorial board.